JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is a reference u/s 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the following question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the property inherited by the assessee from his father u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, belonged to the joint family of the assessee and, was thus, not includible in the net wealth of the assessee-individual ?" 2. On the death of R. N. Singh Deo, Maharaja of Bolangir, a Hindu governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on March 22, 1975, intestate, his widow, three sons including the assessee and three daughters survived him. The assessee along with the aforesaid class-I heirs succeeded to the separate properties of the late Maharaja. In respect of the years 1975-76 and 1976-77, assessments against the assessee were reopened as property succeeded to by the assessee from out of the separate property of the deceased had escaped assessment. The assessee claimed that he, along with his wife, constituted a joint family and one-seventh part of the separate property of the deceased, R. N. Singh Deo, is joint family property in his hands which cannot be assessed as his individual property. This was not accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer who clubbed the one-seventh share with the other wealth of the assessee. In appeals by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the orders of assessment against which the assessee preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-I Vs. Babubhai Mansukhbhai (Deceased) (by L.R. Harshadbhai B. Shah). Same view had been taken by the Gujarat High Court in an earlier decision in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat I Vs. Harshadlal Manilal. The Allahabad High Court had, however, taken a different view in the decisions in COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, U. P. Vs. RAM RAKSHPAL, ASHOK KUMAR., and Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chander Sen. The view of the Allahabad High Court and a decision of the Assam High Court in GHASIRAM AGARWALLA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF GIFT-TAX, ASSAM., were relied upon and, following the Madras High Court in the decision in ADDITIONAL COMMSSIONER OF Income Tax, MADRAS-II, Vs. V. R. A. MANICKA MUDALIAR (DECD.) (BY L. RS.).. Chander Sen. The view of the Allahabad High Court and a decision of the Assam High Court in GHASIRAM AGARWALLA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF GIFT-TAX, ASSAM., were relied upon and, following the Madras High Court in the decision in ADDITIONAL COMMSSIONER OF Income Tax, MADRAS-II, Vs. V. R. A. MANICKA MUDALIAR (DECD.) (BY L. RS.).. In a Full Bench, the Madras High Court, in the decision in The Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Madras-I Vs. P.L. Karuppan Chettiar again considered the question and dissented from the Gujarat view. The Appellate Tribunal followed the Gujarat view and having accepted the claim of the assessee, this reference has been made at the instance of the Revenue. 4. In the meantime, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has rendered a decision in Shrivallabhdas Modani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court has rendered a decision in Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mukundgirji where the Madras and Allahabad views have been followed. 5. Mr. S. C. Roy, learned Advocate-General, who is also standing counsel for the Department submitted that in the decision in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others, the principle has been settled. This is a decision in appeal from the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chander Sen, which has been affirmed. It was clearly stated that the views of the Allahabad High Court, the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, the Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh High Courts are correct. The Supreme Court did not agree with the view of the Gujarat High Court Analysing the principle, the Supreme Court observed (at p. 381) : "In view of the preamble to the Act, i.e., to modify where necessary and to codify the law, in our opinion, it is not possible when the Schedule indicates heirs in Class I and only includes the son and does not include the son's son but does include the son of a predeceased son, to say that when a son inherits the property in the situation contemplated by Section 8, he takes it as karta of his own undivided family. The Gujarat High Court's view noted above, if accepted, would mean that though the son of a predeceased son and not the son of a son, who is intended to be excluded (sic) u/s 8 to inherit, the latter would, by applying the old Hindu law, get a right by birth to the said property contrary to the scheme outlined in Section 8. Furthermore, as noted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Act makes it clear by Section 4 that one should look to the Act in case of doubt and not to the pre-existing Hindu law. It would be difficult to hold today that property which devolved on a Hindu u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would be a Hindu undivided family property in his hands, vis-a-vis his own son, that would amount to creating two classes among the heirs mentioned in Class I, the male heirs in whose hands it will be joint Hindu family property vis-a-vis their sons and female heirs with respect to whom no such concept could be applied or contemplated. It may be mentioned that heirs in Class I of the Schedule u/s 8 of the Act include widow, mother, daughter of a predeceased son, etc." 6. Since the view of the Appellate Tribunal was on the basis of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat-I Vs. Babubhai Mansukhbhai (Deceased) (by L.R. Harshadbhai B. Shah) which has been overruled by the Supreme Court, we answer the question by stating that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the one-seventh share in the separate property of the deceased inherited by the assessee from his deceased father u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act does not belong to the joint family of the assessee and, therefore, is to be included in the net wealth of the assessee as his individual wealth. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assesses. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. 7. I agree.